Transcript of the replies of AKEL General Secretary A. Kyprianou during SIGMA TV’s “Front page” program on the Cyprus problem
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 28th August 2017, Nicosia
Is Mr. Anastasiade’s change of policy, as you call it, due to his intention to run as a candidate?
AK: For us it was clear. Since last October, we had witnessed the first signs, in the Mont Peleran 1 and Mont Peleran 2 Conferences. Permit me to say that in Mont Peleran 1, Mr. Anastasiades and Mr. Akinci had reached a convergence in two of the three criteria which had been set on the territorial issue. That is, as regards the percentage of territory that would be under Turkish Cypriot administration and at the same time on the issue of coastlines. What remained pending and where there was a big gap between the two sides was on the issue of the number of Greek Cypriots to return to their properties under Greek Cypriot administration. We had then proposed to both Mr. Akinci and Mr. Anastasiades something very specific. Namely, to put the map on the table, that the line be drawn and by doing so we considered that no matter how the line with the percentage of territory and coastlines would be set, it was obvious to us that the number of Greek Cypriots that would return under Greek Cypriot administration would have approached the percentage that our side sought.
…Something that did not happen and subsequently during the course of developments we had a reversal of the situation.
AK: Unfortunately, at that critical moment, Mr. Anastasiades chose to go back to Cyprus.
Is it not preferable for someone at the given moment to solve the Cyprus problem, to go down in history rather than undermining developments and engage in a new electoral campaign?
AK: This is what logic says, not just because he will go down in history…
And for the good of the country and people etc.
AK: Exactly. This is the most important thing.
We have to understand that if the Cyprus problem is not solved, the developments that will subsequently follow will be extremely negative. Every day we will be moving closer to partition. What has happened after the Crans Montana conference on Cyprus?
Permit me to make a brief comment to say that AKEL has never proposed to Mr. Anastasiades that he should accept a bad solution for the sake of reaching a solution. And if Mr. Anastasiades or anybody else hints at such a thing, he/she would be lying shamelessly, and I say so fully aware of what I am saying. I challenge Mr. Anastasiades and anyone else to say, to present any documents or individual meetings that we had, in which we called on him to proceed to actions that go beyond the framework set out by the long-standing positions approved by the National Council.
I come back to say the following. What is the situation that has evolved after the Crans Montana conference? First of all, it is obvious that the dialogue will not resume soon. At the same time, there are voices growing on the Turkish side which say that a solution must now be sought outside the framework of the United Nations and this must be of concern to us all.
What is now happening on the ground in the occupied areas?
They are proceeding to new fait accompli with regards the Maronite villages and in the region of Morphou, which while the UN Secretary-General in Crans Montana stated that the Turkish Cypriot side should return Morphou to the Greek Cypriots, it appears from developments themselves that in any future discussion to be held this will belong to the past. And if we do not rush to resume negotiations…
Do you believe that negotiations will resume soon?
AK: Right now, in my opinion, no. With the stand adopted by Mr. Anastasiades, and the stand taken by the Turkish side, I don’t think so
I want to clarify something. The Turkish side is responsible for the situation that exists in Cyprus. What we do criticize Mr. Anastasiades for is that he did not manage to use the preconditions that existed to give an impetus to the Cyprus problem and either we would reach an agreement or the Turkish side would have been exposed.
Right now what do we have?
We are heading towards a dead-end, to new fait accompli on the part of Turkey. Furthermore an attempt is underway to “Islamize” the Turkish Cypriot community by Turkey. The pressure exerted on the Turkish Cypriots will be tremendous. Turkey has been completely removed from the framework of responsibilities and the United Nations are looking towards us.
The President’s letter to UN Secretary-General Gutierrez and the trip to New York?
AK: All these in our view are moves aiming at forming impressions. If only the President’s letter includes what it should include, that is to say, that it clearly states that it adopts the Gutierrez framework, that it adopts the convergences that have been recorded so far and that it calls for the resumption of the negotiations without terms and preconditions and that the President should go there to discuss on the basis of the framework which Mr. Gutierrez set out. I wish he would do this and we will support such a move.
Do you anticipate that in the short term we will have something positive?
AK: Our assessment is that since last October, Mr. Anastasiades was looking to find a way to rid himself of the block which is called the Cyprus problem in view of the upcoming presidential elections. He knew that with the Cyprus problem open it would create problems with regards one or the other existing factions within the Democratic Rally DISY party. He could not satisfy all the views expressed within the ranks of DISY. There are those who want a solution, and those who do not want a solution under any circumstances – they prefer partition. Both of these factions belong to DISY.
Mr. Anastasiades wanted to reconcile this whole situation ahead of the elections. So instead of working to solve the Cyprus problem and go down in history, to be beneficial and useful to the country, he preferred to be liked. And he thought that by going to Crans Montana and behaving in the way he behaved, he would come back to Cyprus, saying that Turkey is solely responsible for the situation that evolved. He would be saying, “I tried, I exhausted all possibilities, it wasn’t feasible”, and that his conscience would be clear and thus leave all his voters satisfied. That’s not how developments evolved.
What do you say about the Archbishop demanding a “tougher” policy on the Cyprus problem?
AK: I won’t comment on the Archbishop’s statement because I think one has to deal with serious issues. We are talking about our country’s fate and future. Some circles and forces believe in engaging in pompous sloganeering, which in the past has proved to be so destructive, and it’s not the first time we are hearing similar language. I do not want to identify them in any way. I am referring to the pre-coup d’état period. Back then certain circles and forces were portraying themselves as “super-patriots” and were engaging in nationalist sloganeering. What was the subsequent end result? The coup d’état and the Turkish invasion that followed. I am not saying that the views are identical, but the sloganeering is the same. They have the same starting point.
In my view, patriotic realism is lacking in these approaches, and the only thing they achieve is the further destruction of Cyprus.
Do not you see that through some moves we could kick start or reshuffle the deck?
AK: I’m sure we could do that. I do not see any desire on the part of Mr. Anastasiades to do so for the simple reason that he regards the Cypriot problem as an obstacle in the run-up to the presidential elections, as an obstacle towards fulfilling his goal of re-election.
I want to say something else as well, because opinions are being expressed from various people about the tactics on the Cyprus problem.
The strategic goal which is a bizonal, bicommunal solution is one thing – and if we try to change it, the only thing we would achieve is a disaster – and tactics are something else. We are not completely negative as to the tactics being proposed by some political parties. We say that those views which can really give an impetus for the Cyprus problem to move forward should be discussed, for an exchange views and reflections to be made and if indeed they can really help we are ready to discuss them.
But we should discuss ideas that will bring us closer to the solution of the Cyprus problem and not distance us from its solution.
What do you say about the calls for a change in the strategy of the Greek Cypriot side as the parties of the “intermediate” political spectrum are proposing?
AK: We have been hearing the talk about the need for a change of strategy for years and we haven’t seen it take any practical form. We are waiting as the three parties supporting the candidacy of N. Papadopoulos said that they would very soon publicize when they proceeded to forge cooperation, their political declaration, but also outline the change of strategy they propose regarding the Cyprus problem. We are waiting and we will judge it accordingly.
However, I want to remind you of this. Over the last 25 to 30 years there have been references made for a change in strategy.
Mr. Clerides in 1992 said that we should bury the Ghali Set of Ideas and that we should pursue a new strategy. We buried them and the Greek Cypriot side came out the worst suffering many losses.
In 1996, Mr. Clerides remembered the policy of “active volcano” on the Cyprus problem. We had all the discourse about the advent of the S300 missiles, and we paid a cost for all these actions.
Do you remember in 1999 UN Resolution 1250, which stated that all ideas/issues are on the negotiating table? And for what ideas are we talking about? In August 1997, Mr. Denktash insisted on the solution of confederation following Mr. Clerides’ “inspired” S300 missile policy. No one reacted from the international community at that time.
In 2006 there was an attempt to change the strategy on the Cyprus problem. What was the result? We succeeded in pressure being exerted on us for the direct trade of the occupied territories with the European Union, for the granting of financial aid of up to 259 million Euros to the Turkish Cypriot community.
These were our “successes” in the attempt made to change strategy.
Let me come to what’s happening currently.
Mr. Anastasiades, following what the other political parties were telling him, attempted to change strategy from March 2013 to February 2014. Anastasiades got into a real mess failing miserably, suffered many losses as the UN slapped him and in February 2014 he was forced to return to what we AKEL was proposing…
You supported him afterwards…
AK: We supported the negotiation procedure. I want to make this point clear too.
If Mr. Anastasiades makes corrective moves which sincerely aim at reaching a solution of the Cyprus problem, you will see AKEL’s stand.
And let me say to those who are stating that AKEL has changed its policy due to pre-election purposes that AKEL is ready to work for a solution to the Cyprus problem at any time.
Because some people are saying you have remembered to criticize Anastasiades for pre-election purposes…
AK: We have done so because of one simple reason – he has once again changed his policy.
From March 2013 to February 2014, which was the only party criticizing Anastasiades? All the other parties were praising, congratulating and applauding him. A great deal of damage was done, Anastasiades realized the mistakes he had made and subsequently proceeded well. We backed the negotiation procedure.
Now he is once again regressing. He is returning to the policy he was implementing in 2013.
